Posted
by
kdawson
on Saturday March 24, 2007 @08:07PM
from the what-part-of-yes-do-you-not-understand dept.

Khyber writes in with a story from Montana, where residents of Missoula County voted in a referendum intended to advise county law-enforcement types to treat marijuana offenses as low-profile. The referendum would not have changed any laws, but was advisory only. After voters approved it, county commissioners overturned it by a 2-to-1 vote. They were swayed by the argument of the county attorney, who had a "gut feeling" that Missoula's electorate had misinterpreted the ballot language. The move has resulted in a flood of disaffection among voters, especially young voters. "Is there even a point to voting any more if the will of the people can so easily be subverted by two people?" one voter posted on a comment blog.

The big problem many people said they have with last night's decision is that it undermines what the voters said they wanted last November.

During last night's hearing, a number of people protested the amendment saying commissioners don't have the power or the right to change the initiative but they did anyway. County Commissioner Bill Carey was the one dissenter in last night's vote. He said the commissioners do have the power to amend the initiative but he doesn't think they should have. He said it should have been given a chance. "I believe we should have implemented the initiative the voters approved. I suggested we should have given the initiative the voters approved a chance and if after a year or so, there really were problems, we should make amendments then," he said.

Carey said he hopes voters aren't too discouraged by last night's vote and he urges them not to give up on the democratic process.

It's not just the justification. It's the entire purpose behind the second amendment. And behind all the new gun laws that try to supersede the second amendment. A little rebellion from time to time is good for the country. Even if it is bad for the belligerents.

It may be the reason for the second ammendment, only thing is the second amendment is now redundant. The very instant anyone attempts to put together a group of people with the aim of affecting Government policies or methods through the 'bearing arms' avenue, they'll be thrown in prison or sent to GTMO.

Your only choice is to vote for the lest corrupt and most honest politician. While you state that a little rebellion is good, it ain't gonna happen.

The PRC does not have a 2nd amendment. The PRC does, however, have a large agricultural and mining population with ready access to explosives. There are an awful lot of bombings in the PRC. Very often the message sender does it in suicide fashion. That he does not survive the exercise does not mean that the message was not received. There are lots of ways to use guns to send a message. The foremost one is their very presence, framing the relationship between the people and the government in subtle ways that rarely have to be stated and most often aren't even consciously acknowledged.

The key is the first. A lone individual with a gun is no danger to the government. A large organization, even without guns, which can freely assemble, communicate, plan, and share vital pieces of information (governmental weaknesses, tactics, etc) is a danger to the government. 5 shots at police does nothing, 546 precisely placed knife wounds does everything.

We had one. It was called "Waco". I watched it on TV. It didn't end well.

In any event, I believe the GP wasn't quite right. The Right to Bear Arms has little to do with "affecting Government policies or methods" other than as a deterrent. If you want to see what happens when people use firearms to directly influence the political process, there are plenty of places in the world where that goes on regularly. It also rarely ends well. We call those situations "coups".

The Second Amendment is there for the time when We, The People of these United States, have given up on the political process, can no longer tolerate our Federal Government's policies or methods, and have set out to replace it and them. Without weapons that is infinitely more difficult. The Second also serves a deterrent, so that the government (any government, local, state or Federal) can't get too overbearing. And what I've been seeing lately, in my State, indicates that more of us need to keep and bear arms. The face of government that most of us see are the police, and they are starting to get out of hand. Power corrupts and all that.

Point being, if we ever reach the point where we need those guns, en-masse, to overthrow our own government, the Second Amendment will no longer matter. But its existence for all this time (and our observance of it) will have given us the chance to try again.

At least, that's the theory. Time will tell if the Founders were right once again.

First off, it doesn't say the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but rather the right of the people.

Furthermore: (10 USC 311)

311. Militia: composition and classes(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.(b) The classes of the militia are--(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

So, fine - the right of all able-bodied males between ages 17-45 to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Sounds good to me.

The second amendment does not apply to normal citizens. It applies to organized militia

You're entirely incorrect. The "milita" is the unorganized collection of armed citizens that were available to call up. Also, the 2nd amendment does apply to "normal citizens." Both of these errors in your position are addressed, exposed, debunked, and disposed of in the following March 9th, 2007 court decision:

Every state has a military code. They're pretty much all modeled after a suggested federal code. Militias outside the National guard, specifically the unorganized militia are a staple in all of the one's I've looked through. Try reading the actual law instead of just somebody's talking points. Most decent public libraries have a state code, read yours instead of being led around by the nose. The relevant section won't be more than a page or two.

However, according to US Code TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > 311 Militia: composition and classes,"The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

In the words of the immortal Hunter S. Thomson, Bill Carey is obviously a perfect example of a "drunken pig farmer". The thing about democracy is that sometimes you have to live with decisions that you abhor. I just wish we could apply Carey's reasoning to the 2001 presidential elections.

The tone of the hearing shifted when Van Valkenburg said that he had proposed the amendments because of a "gut feeling" that Missoula voters were not "detail-oriented" enough to understand the complete scope of the initiative.

I think the only ones who failed the "detail-oriented" test are the slashdot editors who posted a story that references an article and a blog but failed to provide any links.

It is only logical that a county attorney would want to continue prosecuting these cases, otherwise he might have to cut staff and save the taxpayers a few bucks.

I can't say exactly how things work in Montana, but generally a "county attorney" is the guy who advises and represents the county commission on the legal effect of proposed ordinances, their constitutionality (or lack thereof), and sometimes represents the county in civil cases.

Usually, the person who prosecutes criminal cases--representing the state rather than the county--is called the "district attorney".

It's been said by Jean-Jacque Rousseau in the Social Contract that Democracy stops being Democracy (Democracy in the sense of Voting for Opinion vs the difference between Democracy and Republicanism) when the Government stops being a representative for the people. Once that happens it becomes an oppressive tyranical force something akin to a Dictatorship which is the ultimate end of Democractic rule, hence why its been said that every Democractic society needs to continuously reinvent itself and suffer a civil upheavel or it will become a Dictatorship in rule but a Democracy in name, this is the worst type of Dictatorship since it abuses not only the people it controls but also lies to the truth of its own existance. I would rather live under a Dictatorship which acknowledged it was rather than one who said it wasn't. Hence why I'm glad I live in Canada, although we still face many problems along the same lines but not as bad yet.

That meeting just reinforced my opinion that voting is pointless. There were 30 or so people who implored the commitee and commissioners not to amend the initiative, and 5 people ask them to amend it, 3 of which were law enforcement, one man was very, very elderly, and one man who actually claimed that "it was much harder for me to get off pot than marijuana."

The county prosecutor opened the meeting by telling us that we did not understand the initiative, to which many of us, myself included, assured him that we read the initiative in its entirety, and did understand it. When everybody was done speaking, he came back up and told us that he disagreed with us, and that we still did not understand the initiative. In addition, he showed us a map showing how the votes were distributed, and told us that since most of the votes were centered around the "metropolitan" area of Missoula, and not so much in the surrounding areas of the county, that it was not fair to voters to have this initiative.

I really enjoy living in Missoula for a number of reasons, but the local government is not one of them.

For the record, I did vote, and will continue to, regardless of my opinion that voting is purely symbolic.

I live in Missoula and discussed this initiative with quite a few people, none of whom are consumers of unregulated or illegal substances. They all voted for this, and they all understood it clearly. "The police should be investigating real crimes" was the most commonly cited reason. There are unsolved robberies every week in this town that receive, as far as anyone can tell, scant police attention. Police can build careers and the county can confiscate property (and generate revenue) "busting people for drugs" but investigating robberies is hard work and not glamorous in any way. The people of Missoula county understand this clearly. The people who overturned this will very likely be voted out of office next chance.

In the early morning hours of July 7, 2005, the Pennsylvania General Assembly passed pay increases for state lawmakers, judges, and top executive-branch officials. The vote took place at 2 a.m. without public review or commentary and Governor Ed Rendell signed the bill into law. The raise increased legislators' base pay from 16% to 34% depending on position....

Anger over the raise spawned several grass-roots movements, some geared toward voting out incumbents...

Despite the repeal, a total of 17 legislators were defeated in the 2006 primary elections including Senate President Pro Tempore Robert Jubelirer and Senate Majority Leader David J. Brightbill. They were the first Pennsylvania legislative leaders to lose a primary election since 1964.

The November 2006 General Election claimed several more members who supported the pay raise including House Minority Whip Mike Veon, and Reps. Gene McGill, Matt Wright, Tom Gannon and Matthew Good.

Why do you not vote for someone who thinks like you do? Don't tell me it doesn't matter, because you already told me you didn't vote, so we can't really know, now can we?

Personally, I think the problem is that we have ended up with a binary choice for elected officals; Assholes and Dimwits. The de-facto two party system just doesn't cover the real-world spectrum of opinion, including those who self-select to opt out of the system because, wah, wah, there is noone who exactly represents them exactly.

change is incremental, but if you don't vote you are stuck with no hope of change. If everyone who didn't vote "because it doesn't matter" voted for someone other than the two big parties it might give those of us who vote holding our nose a hint that other out there care too.

I always vote.

Sometimes "my guy" wins, sometimes he loses. I am almost always disappointed either way, by the policies that the guy in office advocates. Usually it seems like elected officials do something, just to be doing something, which is almost always wrong.

Hmm, maybe there isn't much difference, other than the fact that I can at least say "I tried".

The chairman of the Democratic party in my county pulled a trick to prevent a motion to
initiate impeachment of President Bush [impeachbush.tv]
from even getting voted on. There was great outrage among local Democrats. We had a county Democratic convention today. It was early Saturday morning but I showed up. It was the first convention I've ever attended but I was pissed off that the will of the people had been subverted.

A new more progressive chair and vice-chair were voted in unanimously.
You can make a difference, especially by starting at the local level and working your way up.

This is the same behavior exhibited by the Massachusetts legislature in 2000 when the tax payers voted on a binding referendum to lower the state income tax rate from 5.3% to 5.0%. This time period was during a $1B annual surplus but the legislators stated that it was not finacially wise for the state to lower the tax rate and that the resulting decrease would not significantly benefit the tax payers in terms of cold hard cash. As it was a binding referendum the legislators simply passed a bill the next day to raise the tax rate back to 5.3%

This only confirms the reason why I and many others simply do not vote. Votes are simply subverted, and ignorance is usually cited by those in power.

The voters probably did not understand the wording of the ballot.
The voters probably did not understand what they are voting on.
The voters are too stupid to vote so just project the illusion that their votes matter.

I for one am sick and tired of the government and those in power who think they are above the voters. Government and those who work for the Government exist to serve the public, not the other way around.

None of those are reasons not to vote. They're just excuses for being lazy.

Even if you believe that your vote doesn't matter what do you lose from voting besides time ?

On the other hand, if you're wrong, and your vote does make a difference then you've had some say in the politics that affect your every day life. If that doesn't matter to you then, by all means, stay home and jerk off while others who actually care go out and try to change things for the better.

Even if they're just wasting their time at least they're actually doing something.

The way I see it you have three options:

1) You vote and try to change things through the system (writing angry letters, protesting etc.)2) You don't vote and instead gather a group of supporters and draw arms and try to overthrow your government by force.3) You do nothing and justify it by saying how futile doing something would be.

Even if you believe that your vote doesn't matter what do you lose from voting besides time ?

Well, by voting you indicate you submit (and subject) your will to the democratic process, meaning you'll abide by whatever result the democratic process achieves. In case you've lost faith in that said process, or generally in the government you are supposed to be selecting, by voting you lose your dignity and/or moral high-ground by submitting it to a form of government you no longer can trust. Voting means you r

it's classic psychology: they have trained dogs to learn that they cannot control their surroundings. they teach them that if they get an electric shock from jumping over a barrier, then the dogs just lay down and take the shocks

it's sad, and it works just as well on humans

the point is to effect control on your government, that's the beauty of a democracy. but if a democracy is populated by those who think helpessly, like slaves, like, you, then democracy does not work

when you withhold your vote, you only help those who you complain about. those who you hate are HAPPY that you do not vote. if their actions lead you to not vote, all the more reason to do the actions they do, according to them

your psychology is that of a slave in a fascist state. and if enough people who think like you populate this country, then that is exactly what it will become. BECAUSE of people like you, not in spite of people like you

look: there will ALWAYS be assholes who try to manipulate the system. always. but simply because they exist, you will withhold your voice from your government. incredible. you must always fight the assholes who would subvert democracy. but if you simply stop fighting them, and give up your vote, then guess what? they win

if this country is not democratic in anyway, it is more because of people like you, then the assholes who would subvert it. because evil assholes can be fought. apathy on the other hand, is an obstinate unmoveable useless obstacle

people who think like you are the biggest reason democracy fails: "i'm helpless, so i will not vote"

no, you're not helpless, your vote counts. you only think that way because you have been trained like a dog in a cage. you've learned helpelessness, you have no heart, you've ceased caring

The correct name is Cannabis. Marijuana refers to cannabis sativa strains originating in Mexico. There is also cannabis indica, which is lower in THC (the 'high') and higher in CBD (which is more beneficial in some medical cases, such as cataplexy).

There are also two other main strains, Industrial Hemp being one of them, but also another which i cannot remember the name of.

Ballot initiatives don't have much of a direct effect (although the actual news story [newwest.net] I found says that they're still deprioritizing non-felony possession), but one of the commissioners who voted to change the initiative needs to run for re-election in 2008. If anyone plausible wants her job, it probably wouldn't be hard to defeat her on a platform of not second-guessing the electorate and the pot declaration that voters already went for.

"Is there even a point to voting any more if the will of the people can so easily be subverted by two people?" one voter posted on a comment blog.

Uh, this is an argument for voting, not an argument against it. If you believe these two elected officials are subverting the will of the people they represent, you get their asses kicked out the next time around. This is exactly what happened in Kansas when the Kansas school board had a majority of creationists embarassing the majority of Kansans by trying to force creationsism (yeah, they call it "intelligent design" now, but we know better) down students' throats. The voters came to the ballots and put those people out on the street.

So this is a compelling reason to vote, not a reason to wuss out of the democratic process.

Um....but these people have just declared that they will ignore the result of a vote if it doesn't go the way they want.Say at the next election they *do* get voted out. So what? What's to stop them declaring *again* that the voters didn't understand the issue, or were confused, and that they just declare that the *correct* result is that they've been voted back in.

If your votes are being thrown away, discarded or ignored, there *is* no point in voting. It's just a meaningless sham, dressed up to look like

"Is there even a point to voting any more if the will of the people can so easily be subverted by two people?"

Sadly it's just a microcosm of the wider world. The UN General Assembly (i.e. The rest of the world) can vote all it likes but it's resolutions are non-binding. Yet when just a handful of countries vote (the Security Council) their word is law. The 5 permanent members ("permanent" already being an affront to any kind of democracy) also have veto power over everyone else. It's so ridiculously undemocratic, I'm not really sure why anyone bothers turning up. I think the rest of the world should set up their own UN, where countries have an equal say. If you think that countries should have unequal representation, it should be based on population count not wealth since you would not like rich people in your own country to have more votes than you, would you?

There's a lot of gnashing of teeth out there about the poor quality of our political leadership and the lack of good candidates who will stand up and fix what's wrong. But a timid people will never produce strong, moral leaders. It's axiomatic. If we want things to change in this country, we're just going to have to do it ourselves. We have to be strong if we expect our country to be strong. Corrupt political leaders will never bring themselves to justice--we have to do it. The police will never arrest themselves for violating the law, so we as citizens must arrest them. That's the ultimate guarantor of democracy, folks, us.

Can't speak for folks in other parts of the country, but Montanans still remember what it means to be free. They will correct this and those who think they can simply overrule a democratic vote.

One could argue that voting issues certainly fall under 'Stuff that matters'.

I'd suggest that the only thing that "matters" for anyone keen on the subject is good music and lots of brownies.;-) That said, there was a recent program on The History Channel on the subject that I found interesting. From a Wiki article on the Legal Issues of Cannabis [wikipedia.org]:

Until 1937, consumption and sale of cannabis was legal in most U.S. states. In some areas it could be openly purchased in bulk from grocers or in cigarette form at newsstands, though an increasing number of states had begun to outlaw it. In that year, federal law made possession or transfer of cannabis without the purchase of a by-then-incriminating tax stamp illegal throughout the United States by passing the 1937 Marihuana Tax Act. This was contrary to the advice of the American Medical Association at the time.[2] Legal opinions of the time held that the federal government could not outlaw it entirely. The tax was $100 per pound of hemp, even for clothes or rope. The expense, extremely high for the time, was such that people stopped openly buying and making it. The decision of the United States Congress was based in part on testimony derived from articles in newspapers owned by William Randolph Hearst, who had significant financial interests in the timber industry, which manufactured his newsprint.

The act did not itself criminalize the possession or usage of cannabis, but levied a tax equalling roughly one dollar on anyone who dealt commercially in marijuana. It did, however, include penalty provisions. Violations of proper procedure could result in a fine of up to $2000 and five years' imprisonment. The net effect was to make it too risky for anyone to deal in the substance.

The bill was passed on the grounds that cannabis caused "murder, insanity and death". Today, it is generally accepted that these reasons were fictitious; in 1951, Anslinger himself claimed that he had no evidence to support such a thesis. However, new reasons had emerged by then, which pushed through a bill that superseded the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937.

In 1969 in Leary v. United States, this act was found to be unconstitutional since it violated the Fifth Amendment, since a person seeking the tax stamp would have to incriminate him/herself.

To rephrase the above, if you wanted to deal in the stuff, you needed a tax stamp. Which required possession of the stuff. Which was... wait for it... illegal.

It's hardly surprising that in the decades since, the laws concerning cannabis are just as tortured and contradictory, especially when considered against the background of yet another new study that suggest alcohol and tobacco are more dangerous [guardian.co.uk]

By your logic then you believe that alcohol and tobacco should also be illegal. Is that the case?

Tobacco isn't as much of a concern because it's effects alone on a person's mental facilities are much less than other drugs. I would say yes to alcohol, however we've tried that before and things didn't go so well. The problem is that once you decide to take something away, you have to be willing to do whatever it takes to then enforce the law. Most of the time, "whatever it takes" means taking even more away from the people.

You can always circumvent making alcohol illegal by simply trading a punishment for possession with stiffer punishments for abuse. For example, the FIRST time somebody is caught driving under the influence of alcohol, they lose their license. Not for a week, not a month, not a year. Forever. The goal here would be to remove the threat some people pose as fast as possible, without inflicting sobriety on more "responsible" people. It wouldn't fix the problem, but I think it would be a significant step in the right direction.

You can always circumvent making alcohol illegal by simply trading a punishment for possession with stiffer punishments for abuse. For example, the FIRST time somebody is caught driving under the influence of alcohol, they lose their license. Not for a week, not a month, not a year. Forever. The goal here would be to remove the threat some people pose as fast as possible, without inflicting sobriety on more "responsible" people. It wouldn't fix the problem, but I think it would be a significant step in the right direction.

In California at least, the threshold for drink driving convictions for minors is about the same as the nominal uncertainty on many testing devices: 0.01% BAC. If I recall correctly, this can be achieved with less than 1 mL of ethanol, and is also an amount which is far below a level that would cause noticeable effects. Would it really be fair to destroy the lives of people (in parts of California, driving is practically essential) who might have a nearly undetectable and completely unnoticeable level of inebriation, or who might not have even had any alcohol at all (assuming that the uncertainties given are 3 sigma, there is at least a 1% chance that a reading of over 0.01 will result from an actual concentration of 0).

The idea is interesting, but unintended consequences and abuse can be tricky with any such idea.

In California at least, the threshold for drink driving convictions for minors is about the same as the nominal uncertainty on many testing devices: 0.01% BAC. If I recall correctly, this can be achieved with less than 1 mL of ethanol

The net effect of that is to make it illegal for somebody under 21 to drive to church and take part in communion. Gotta love it...

I would say yes to alcohol, however we've tried that before and things didn't go so well.

And we tried it again with other drugs, and it's going just as poorly. Apparently we don't learn from our mistakes.

The problem is that once you decide to take something away, you have to be willing to do whatever it takes to then enforce the law. Most of the time, "whatever it takes" means taking even more away from the people.

You are exactly right about that, and not just in theory. The War on Drugs has been every bit as useful as the War on Terror for justifying more and more government and police powers. It started with banning substance the government had no right banning and now due to the ban they can confiscate the cars, computers, and houses of people just because those substances are found inside.

Somehow I get the feeling that's not what the founding fathers meant by "government for the people"

"Logic has no place in pro-drug arguments, because there is nothing logical about (ab)using these drugs in the first place"

Of course there is, the brain is a pleasure seeking mechanism, in fact it can be argued that all effort is mediated in the brain for the purpose of seeking pleasure, learn about it. Drug users simply take a shorter route to pleasure, however damaging in the long run it may be.

So let's put them in jail, support them for a large part of their lives, give criminals an easy way to make money, ruin millions of lives in a bogus war, loose the tax on consumption... no, you are the illogical one. As for answering each and every point in detail there is no point, the willfully ignorant have no interest in learning anything.

Again, only at the most basic level. If you really believe that this is all we are, then you really are one of the moist robots Scott Adams likes to go on about. For most people, there are more profound motivators than perceived pleasure.

Interesting, so what motivates you?

Money maybe? But you don't enjoy that?Family, perhaps? But you don't enjoy them?Making the world a better place? But you don't enjoy that?Creative expression? But you don't enjoy that?Educational achievement? But you don't enjoy that?Building a legacy to be remembered by future generations? But you don't enjoy that?

So what is your great motivator that you gain no pleasure from, I'm curious.

So what is your great motivator that you gain no pleasure from, I'm curious.

I think there is a difference from physiological pleasure and a feeling of happiness or contentment. Yes, some people obtain that through money, others through helping people, others through hobbies, etc.

By your argument, the enjoyment that comes from reading a book is the same as the pleasure that comes from drugs, is that right?

It acts on the same mechanisms in the brain. Really, it's an activity, and as long as someone is not hurting others then it's Stay Out of my Fucking Way territory.

I'll tell you why legalizing drugs will aid our society. And it doesn't have a goddamn thing to do with the people who take drugs -- which, I'll note, already do so in violation of the law.

It'll help because it will mean criminals no longer make money. What'd Prohibition give us? The Mafia. What'd the War on Drugs give us? The South American cartels. What gave the Triads the financial backing they needed to engage in protection rackets and slavery? Funds from opium sales.

You remember hearing about that town in Mexico that can't keep a sheriff because the cartels murder anyone elected? Why are they doing that? 'Cause they like money, that's why. Who's giving them money? Why, that would be us. Why are they getting money? 'Cause they sell drugs. Drugs are made of fucking plants, why are they so expensive?

Artificially suppressed supply.

People using drugs is a problem, and one we need to deal with. AFTER we deal with the people with the fiscal incentive to give people drugs -- I think they're called "pushers". Why do you suppose that is?

You're trying to justify your argument by implicitly equating the market value of processed tobacco with processed cocaine. That's completely not happening. The tobacco industry makes money on/volume/. The cartels can't manage anything near that level of efficency; they live or die based on street value.

And do you have any proof for your claim that legalization would increase demand? Do you know anybody --/anybody/ -- who gets up in the morning and says, "You know what would go great with this meal? Crack. Too bad it's illegal!" Hardly.

I am sick and I am tired and I have had it with the laws of my nation provoking such utter contempt. This is a stupid law, and even children can tell that it's a stupid law, and one bad law inevitably poisons any respect citizens have for the rest. My nation has enemies who seek it harm, and these enemies are directly empowered by my own tax dollars, and this getting old.

Gangs and drug-related violence won't go away. Why give up your spot on the corner when you can undercut the gas station down the street by 25%? Why give up your turf just because Uncle Sam said your merchandise isn't illegal anymore?

The local dealer (or syndicate) is pretty much toast without a source. Both national, and some international legalization would need to take place (not for pot, obviously). If a legal international market existed, the current local distributors (criminal) would have no way to get it cheaper than the gas station (other than by outright theft). I'm sure it would be quite hard to remove the entrenched international manufacturers, but I think it could be done with time. What is being done now certainly isn't working very well.

The current non-political producers would become legitimate, and that would almost certainly result in a "mellowing" of their business practices. The political movements, whether FARC [wikipedia.org] in Columbia, or the Taliban in Afghanistan, would have a much harder time getting money out of drugs. Legitimate companies could compete for (pay and protect) labourers successfully. Businesses (like Tescos or Walmart or whatever) would certainly buy from the legal sources, so most or all of the market would be legal. Cost of production would be similar, but you'd have a further side-effect of weakening local support for groups like FARC or the Taliban, and cutting into their war-budget significantly.

I bet quite a few countries would resist legalization, but I bet plenty would be into it without the current US anti-drug pressures and international agreements.

Personally, I can't see very many drawbacks to legalization of any drug, and can see a lot of positives. Sure, a handful more people might f*ck up their own lives, but I don't think that's either likely, or worse than the current state of affairs. Cutting into the revenue of gangs and guerrilla movements alone are worth that (possible) extra social cost.

We already have to deal with intoxicated people operating cars, planes, and other potentially lethal machinery. How much worse would things be if now, in addition to those, you've got people high on ecstasy or marijuana? What about heroin? Would bystander deaths double? Triple? Some of the effects of these drugs make alcohol pale in comparison.Probably not much worse. We already have strong laws and strong enforcement against things like drunk driving. Drug usage would not become acceptable overnight, merely not criminal. Drug testing would not go away. Heroin usage is pretty much self-correcting.

If we removed the criminal penalties and a large amount of the money from the drug trade the hope would be that the criminal element associated with drugs would fade away. When you talk about bystander deaths from drugs, you need to balance it against the current fallout from the war on drugs - those killed by bullets from drug-cash fueled gangs, the lives wrecked by putting people in prison for possessing a few ounces of an illegal substance, the loss of our freedoms and liberties to allow our government to try to tackle an impossible job.

When the authorities can keep the prisons "drug-free" they can start arguing that they can win the war on drugs. So far I've seen no evidence that it is possible.

People like to explain that the "war on drugs" is failing and how eventually the government will have no choice but to legalize these substances. They even go on to say how great it would be for everyone because then the government will be able to collect taxes in the same manner they do with tobacco. Last time I checked, not very many people grow tobacco in their backyards and make cigarettes in their basements. Why does anyone think dealers give the government a cut of their lucrative business?So, why don't people grow tobacco in their own backyards and make their own cigarettes? It's because even at $5 a pack it's a lot cheaper and easier to buy a package of cigarettes than it is to grow and roll your own. When you buy drugs you're not just paying for the cost of cultivation and processing - you're paying for the risks that the distributors are taking with being arrested and put in federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison. Look at what the people in Columbia are paid for the raw coca leaves - it's nowhere near the price paid for cocaine or crack on the street in the US. The cost of processing is not that great. What you're paying for is all of the risks taken by the distributors. Remove the risks and the price will come down. Remove the money and the drug gangs will disappear.

Personally, I haven't taken any illegal drugs since college (about 20 years ago) and I didn't take too many back then. They bore me - I'd rather spend an evening reading a good book than getting high on something. What I don't care for is the destruction that the war on drugs is causing to our society. No knock searches, not being able to possess large amounts of cash, arbitrary confiscation of property on the suspicion that it was acquired illegally, intrusive controls in our banking system to check for money laundering, young kids with assault rifles. All of these are the fallout from the war on drugs and none of them really work because the rewards for dealing and distributing drugs continue to outweight the risks of dealing and distributing drugs.

We already have to deal with intoxicated people operating cars, planes, and other potentially lethal machinery. How much worse would things be if now, in addition to those, you've got people high on ecstasy or marijuana?

By your logic (which I'm sympathetic to), the number of victims of users and addicts should roughly correlate with the number of users and addicts. So the goal of our public policy, including our laws, should be to reduce the number of users and addicts. Right? So, the first question that we should be able to answer is: has the presence of laws prohibiting marijuana, cocaine, heroin, methamphetamines, MDMA, etc. reduced the usage or addiction rate of any of those substances in the time since they were passed? You won't take my word for it, so I'll ask you to look it up for youself. The answer will probably suprise you.

What about heroin? Would bystander deaths double? Triple?

Or would they decline? The legalization of these drugs would reduce the price dramatically. After devastating the profitability of the black market, users can use cocaine and heroin in ways that are much less likely to cause addiction (taken orally instead of injected or heated and inhaled, for instance).

Last time I checked, not very many people grow tobacco in their backyards and make cigarettes in their basements. Why does anyone think dealers give the government a cut of their lucrative business?

There are at least two important differences between marijuana and tobacco. The profits on tobacco are much, much lower than the profits on marijuana. Also, marijuana grows like a weed in just about any medium and fixes nitrogen into it's roots (makes the soil richer), while tobacco is picky about soil conditions, and very damaging to the soil where it grows.

Society already has to pay for addicts, how many would we be paying for if these substances become easily and legally available?

And here's the core issue. I believe that just like making alcohol illegal increased drinking (and drunks), the current laws are largely responsible for the increased rates of users and addicts; and just like ending prohibition returned the number of drinkers and drunks down to pre-prohibition levels, legalizing drugs will reduce both users and addicts from their current numbers.

You seem to believe that alcohol usage rates around US alcohol prohibition, the changes in hard drug usage rates as hard drug prohibitions have gotten more and more severe, and the reduction in users and addicts in the Netherlands as they eliminate more and more prohibitions are the exceptions, and that all we need is more of what hasn't worked to finally fix the problem.

You and I both want fewer drug users and fewer drug addicts. The difference is that I'm willing to acknowledge that drug laws don't help and probably make that goal even more difficult. So I ask you, have we seen a substantial benefit or has the War on (Some) Drugs made the drug problem in this country worse?

Logic has no place in pro-drug arguments, because there is nothing logical about (ab)using these drugs in the first place.

There's a sneaky argument in there that you're not voicing. I'm not a user of any illegal drugs. Aside from the occasional glass of port, cup of tea, or Advil now and then, I don't use any drugs at all. I think that using addictive drugs is one of the stupidest possible things a person could do. And yet I firmly believe that legalization is the only chance we have to (1) reduce the number of drug users and addicts; (2) reduce the number of secondary crimes related to drug dealing and drug buying; (3) reduce the funding for gangs and other black-market organizations; and (4) begin the process of restoring some of our long-lost freedoms. We've paid for the War on (Some) Drugs with the fourth, fifth, ninth, and tenth amendments to the Constitution.

We already have to deal with intoxicated people operating cars, planes, and other potentially lethal machinery. How much worse would things be if now, in addition to those, you've got people high on ecstasy or marijuana? What about heroin? Would bystander deaths double? Triple? Some of the effects of these drugs make alcohol pale in comparison.

We already have to deal with intoxicated people operating cars, planes, and other potentially lethal machinery. How much worse would things be if now, in addition to those, you've got people high on ecstasy or marijuana?

People already operate these machines under the influence of all manner of illicit drugs. People who use these drugs don't tend to care much about the legality or otherwise, so I don't think there is a valid case to make that ending prohibition will increase their numbers. If your argument is valid, will you also argue that cell phones should be banned? The reactions of people driving while talking on the phone is similar to driving drunk, so cell phones should be banned everywhere to prevent idiots from using them in cars. Is that your point?

The war on drugs is failing in the same way as a war on the common cold would fail. Declaring war on a health problem is great for propaganda but that's all. You cannot mend a broken bone by declaring war on it.

If the govermnet regulated the manufacture of synthetic drugs and allowed the taxed supply of all illicit drugs, it wouldn't matter what drug dealers thought. They would be out of business, their entire revenue stream would disappear and with it their power. The smart ones would go legitimate, much like the end of alcohol prohibition.

Your argument about taxes needing to be high to pay for addicts is flawed too. The government currently makes no revenue from the drug trade and, ignoring the cost to society of addiction, is idiotically throwing money at this war on drugs. If they stopped throwing that money away and started taxing drugs, they would eliminate an expense and turn it into a revenue stream.

If we now bring the cost of drug addiction back into the equation, in the case of physically addictive drugs like heroin and crack, one of the biggest costs to society is through associated crime. If the price of these drugs go down, the cost of maintaining an addiction goes down and associated crime levels drop. Also, by removing a huge disincentive to admit to drug problems people with are more likely to accept and even actively seek treatment. The war on drugs makes that more difficult.

As for cannabis, and the concept that it is a stepping stone to harder drugs, that has more to do with its illicit nature rather than the drug itself. Remove the "forbidden fruit" quality to it, and it stops being a stepping stone to anything.

All of these arguments are well established and have been proven true in countries around the world with the guts to stand up to the corruption that maintains US style drug laws. Remember, when advocating a tough stance on drugs, you are on the same side as organized criminals who stand nothing to lose from prohibition and everything to gain.

If you really want to stop the drug problem, the only sensible solution is to end prohibition. But then logic has no place in anti-drug rhetoric, or in "War on " propaganda.

And given that alcohol is on many levels much more addictive and destructive than heroin, you might want to ask yourself: why hasn't our society collapsed under the weight of all those alcohol users? Simple: not all alcohol users destroy themselves. Most people do take care of themselves, albeit not optimally. This will be no different with other drugs.

While I think that a society of addicts is ultimately doomed, my primary concern are the victims of drug abusers.

Bullshit. You just think it's evil and want it kept illegal.

We already have to deal with intoxicated people operating cars, planes, and other potentially lethal machinery. How much worse would things be if now, in addition to those, you've got people high on ecstasy or marijuana?

Politics anywhere can affect us all. The original laws in this country that established the legal grounds for criminalizing marijuana possession and usage were funded by the lumber/paper industry and the cotton industry. They made donations to elected officials as well as paid for prejudiced research on marijuana. This process should sound familiar to you.

It wasn't marijuana they wanted to get rid of though but hemp, by focusing on marijuana propaganda they got hemp production in the US stopped as well as imports of hemp. Similar tactics have been repeated many times. Hemp had many uses at the time, including the production of paper and cloth, in fact the Declaration of Independance and the US Constitution are printed on paper made from hemp. Hemp would potentially be a great resource atm for replacing many hydrocarbon products currently used, so you can bet that the oil companies might join in any attempts to legalize hemp production. Hemp has a wide range of very good uses if you bother to research for them. Far too many to discuss here.

Marijuana prior to the 1937 Marihuana Tax Act had many medical uses and the American Medical Association opposed the passing of this act. This was mentioned by at least one other poster here but they didn't go in depth on it and neither will I for the purposes of this post other then to suggest everyone research a bit.

As I and others have stated here before, the only way we can change the current path of our government is to retake it from the current power structure from the local government on up. To do so requires the education of our fellow citizens and ourselves on what is really going on, on how it really should be and how to get it there. Therefore the events in some small town where the citizens have tried to reclaim their government (or some large city, or some other state) are of interest to us all, particularly when it involves governmental roadblocks to such repossession.

Will you ignore it when they come for those in Misoula, because your not from Misoula? (reference to the oft repeated quote) Btw, Thomas Jefferson and George Washington were hemp farmers and Jefferson was a big advocate of its uses.

Let me give you a hint: All voting irregularities are 'stuff that matters' and it's stuff that matters to geeks as well as everyone else. The war on drugs has been as absurd as the DMCA and the **AA's war in copyrights/fair use.

You might argue that this isn't a voting irregularity, but the vote result was 'irregularly' thrown out on bogus grounds. That is to say that our government is not listening to us, and THAT is something that matters!... unless of course, you are only 12 and reading/. from your mom's basement?

We can argue over whether the system functioned properly or not; in fact, that's what this sort of thread is all about...hence my argument that it was in fact appropriate for/.

As for whether the system in fact acted as intended...I'd say no. While it is true that the government in question is in the republican form, even representative governments (like this one) contain methods of polling constitutents directly and investing the people with some limited legislative powers, like a referendum. Absent actual powers, non-binding ballot questions are intended to ask the people's inclination on issues of policy. In this case, a lawyer working for the county had 'a gut feeling' that people who voted for the question intended to vote against it, despite there being no evidence supproting that conclusion. Since deliberative bodies are supposed to deliberate on facts, and there were no facts in evidence except for the simple fact of the actual vote result, two out of three commissioners erred very, very badly. That was the system breaking down.

It isn't to say that the commissioners broke any laws. Quite the contrary, they probably acted within their authority. Nonetheless, we know that a system can act harmfully without having any structural defect. For example, it is within the power of the federal government to raise the marginal tax rate in all categories to 100%. It wouldn't be illegal, but I think we would all call it a massive systemic breakdown nonetheless.

P.S. The republican form was an innovation whose intention was never to prevent the tyranny of the majority. The element in the equation that provides that protection is a Constitution, a document prescribing and proscribing the bounds of legitimate authority for the governing body and placing certain human rights out-of-bounds of legislation or regulation.

P.P.S. I also think that most republics don't follow the wills of their constituents, and for the most part this is a good thing, as the people at large are neither privy to the requisite information nor the time to analyze that information to make decently informed decisions about most issues. However, that system seems to fail when that natural obfucatory nature of legislation provides a convenient shield for monied interests to ply favorable regulation.

LoL. I guess the real answer is directly related to how many people weren't saved because the IP cost too much for the patient to afford the relevant medical procedure or medicine that used the IP.I would guess that IP issues have killed more people in poorer areas then any war on drugs could have. The difference is also that death from the war on drugs seems to be related to an action already known not to be proper while death due to the lack of affordable medical treatments or medicine seem to be directly

Well, you see it's like... oh hold on, I have to step away from the computer, I'm laughing so hard... OK, it's like don't worry about your karma because you see... hold on... I need to get some more of these cookies. These cookies are awesome and all of the sudden I just can't seem to get enough of... hold on, I think I'm going to have another laughing fit... umm... you see, oh, something about some "news for nerds" question. Dude, just chill out. Haven't you ever looked up at the stars and thought, that light is touching my face and it was touching a start? So thats why it's news for nerds.

Nerds generally love beer, caffeine and pot. It is part of the culture and slashdot often talks about geek culture, even when it includes things that don't directly relate to technology (e.g., anime and monty python).

There are lots of reasons pot goes well with geeks. The most obvious is how well it complements a long coding or gaming session. I would say that another reason is that geek culture, or at least the unix culture that affects a lot of people here, came of age in California during the 1970s. Look also at the stoners who founded Apple and the American video game industry (supposedly, back in the day at Atari, the security guards' main role was to warn the programmers if any cops were coming so they could hide their stash).

Also, geeks tend to like decentralization of power and free choice. As a whole, they have a much stronger libertarian bent than the general populace, and as people who make a living using their minds, they are obviously unhappy about the government trying to dictate what they can do with them.

"Personal computers and recreational computers, personal drugs and recreational drugs, are simply two ways in which individuals have learned to take power back from the state".-Timothy Leary

Here in Oklahoma, we brought the lottery to a vote three times and it passed all three times, but we never got the lottery until about a year after the third time.

In Nebraska, we've voted in term limits for our state legislators three times. Because Nebraska has the nation's only unicameral (meaning only one congressional body, rather than two like a house and senate), the people's vote via referendum is considered the check and balance of "the other house."

In all three cases, the legislators threw the term limits out (which limit them to only a few terms). They refuse to leave, and have deemed the overwhelming majority vote of the people to be either caused by confusion reading ballets or just plain wrong.

Because the people kept on sending out petitions to get it back on the ballot and voted on, the legislature decided to fix that. They made all sorts of new rules on the petition process, cutting the time to circulate petitions in half, doubling the required amount of votes, using nefarious methods to reject signatures, etc.

Once you let someone be a full-time politician, the power goes to their head. The influence of lobbyists and the nice gifts they bring matters much more than any pathetic constituent. Show me someone who's a life-long politician and I'll show you a crook - party need not matter.

>The influence of lobbyists and the nice gifts they bring matters much more than any pathetic constituent.

Two possible reasons for this, both curable by voter action.

First possibility, the politician cares more about booze and hookers in the short term than about getting reelected to get more booze and hookers in his next term. Voters can fix that every time someone's term comes up.

Second possibility, the lobbyist gifts actually influence elections. In the US, literal vote-buying is rare. Politicians want money for their campaigns so they can buy TV ads. Voters can fix that problem too, by ignoring TV campaign ads and by talking politics with their friends to drown out the campaign ads ("Joe, Joe, who do you think is going to be good for your family? Are you going to believe me, or some ad agency from New York?").

When somebody does a bad job it's their fault. When you can fire them and you don't it's your fault.

With your telling your friend how to vote as opposed to letting him make a decision on his own, one wonders.

Yes, only those with the finances to have their opinions televised should be allowed to express opinions or influence people. We little people shouldn't think too hard or speak too loudly, it might cause us to forget our place.

Yes, only those with the finances to have their opinions televised should be allowed to express opinions or influence people.

Such financial issues wouldn't matter if there were actually an informed voting populace. The problem is the majority of people rely solely on 15 second soundbites from TV to make their decision, rather than actual research.

Discussions among citizens is a great way to become an informed populace. There is no reason why the populace should merely be an audience for the paid shills.

For an example of a polar opposite state legislature, check out New Hampshire:- 435 Representatives for roughly a million people.- Pay for representatives is $100 per year.- The legislature is very much part-time.

It's considered the most represented population at the state level in the US. When I was living there as a teenager I knew 4 state reps personally, including a guy who worked as an elevator operator. Say what you want about the area, it does have a government that represents its people.

In Nebraska, we've voted in term limits for our state legislators three times. Because Nebraska has the nation's only unicameral (meaning only one congressional body, rather than two like a house and senate), the people's vote via referendum is considered the check and balance of "the other house."

In all three cases, the legislators threw the term limits out (which limit them to only a few terms). They refuse to leave, and have deemed the overwhelming majority vote of the people to be either caused by confusion reading ballets or just plain wrong.

That's flat-out incorrect. The Legislature didn't throw the term limits out, the courts did, as Nebraska's first two attempts at a term limit law also imposed term limits on federal representatives, something the State of Nebraska has no jurisdiction over. The third time, they limited it to state officials, and (SURPRISE!) the courts had no problems with it. I don't know how you can say that they "refused to leave" when every legislator who was term-limited out did indeed leave after the 2006 election.

You guys have got no sense at all. When we complain about American imperialism, you say well our culture dominates the world get used to it (you mean McDonald's haha), call us leftists and then complain when you find out you aren't even the American empire you're just serfs in the control of the few. When something nerdy gets posted to Slashdot and someone like me replies with analysis and information we don't get modded up unless it's a banal one-liner. So what the hell. Bollocks to you all. We'd like to h

the government is so far removed from the ppl they don't even try to make it look legit anymore.

Do you have any idea what you're talking about? First, nobody told the voters they got to choose the law, they simply got to advise the council. If they're not happy with the way the council took their advice, next election they can replace the council.

it would not matter if an entire state voted to allow medical weed, the feds just ignore it.

...nobody told the voters they got to choose the law,... State != feds. If a state has a law contradicting a federal law, the federal law overrules.

Please, allow me to direct you to the Bill of Rights. The 10th amendment states:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people."

Now, the federal government claims all rights and allows the people to obey... But it isn't just the federal government, Governor Rick Perry tried to mandate the HPV vaccine to Texan girls without proper legislation... It's only natural for county government to follow the examples set by the larger government bodies... Why listen to the people when don't want to?

Just what are you suggesting we do about the problem with drug abuse and addiction?

Educate the population, get basic health care for everyone and alleviate the worst pressures of poverty. The answers to this problem have been known for decades if not longer, and are within easy reach for America. We simply lack the will to fix this.

Belladonna is a plant too. It doesn't change the fact that it's deadly. Opium and Coca are plants too. That doesn't make them harmless. Drug abuse and addiction harms not just individuals, but entire families, and the rest of society.

Beer and (another addictive, carcinogenic plant:) tobacco are not safer. They should be restricted More, and that's gradually happening to smokers, worldwide.

Just what are you suggesting we do about the problem with drug abuse and addiction?

People should be allowed to do harm to themselves. People should be allowed to smoke in public. The government should not interfere. Now if a corporation wants to not hire people that smoke or drink, that is perfectly ok. If the government want to outlaw drunk driving, that is ok because you are causing great immediate harm. You don't have to go to the bar, and walking past someone smoking a cigarette will not cause significant harm. (Attempted) suicide should not be a crime for people over the age of 18

I currently don't have health insurance because I quite my corporate job to be a contractor for a few months. If I got injured, and die due to lack of medical care, I deserve to die. I never finished college. If no one will hire me as a result, I deserve to literally starve to death. I would accept private charity, but would chose death over welfare. I drink and occasionally smoke cigars. I will not blame anyone for liver cancer.

The government needs to not deal with these problems. Private charities should. If charities can not raise enough money to help you, you do not deserve help. I am being callous here, but it is necessary to keep the government small.

People should be allowed to do harm to themselves. People should be allowed to smoke in public.Problem A; people smoking in public do not just harm themselves, they do cause harm to others. That harm isn't necessarily cancer, but it is certainly an unpleasant environment for non-smokers. Causing involuntary harm to others is one of the things government is supposed to try to prevent. Bans on smoking in public places are there to protect the staff, who often don't have the power or the financial ability to j

Beer and (another addictive, carcinogenic plant:) tobacco are not safer. They should be restricted More, and that's gradually happening to smokers, worldwide.
Just what are you suggesting we do about the problem with drug abuse and addiction?

Absolutely nothing, at least legally. The fact is, despite what the hacks at DARE tell all the kids, there is a huge difference between use and abuse. Use is having a glass of wine at dinner; abuse is sharing a handle of vodka with yourself alone in your bedroom at 2 AM. There is a difference between various drugs, and some are much more dangerous than others. You are much better off having a beer than a bump of coke, no questions asked. Anyone that would claim otherwise is seriously effed up in the head.

But apart from all that, there is a serious problem with treating these issues as solvable through prohibitions. People want drugs, plain and simple. Therefore people will find them, whether or not other people want to protect them from themselves. By forcing them to go through back channels to do so, all you do is create a fantastic money-making machine for the criminal element to exploit, and make criminals out of a whole bunch of people who otherwise contribute perfectly well to society.

A better solution is to treat these things like we currently treat alcoholism. Some people can handle their stuff, some people can't; do everything in your power to help out those that can't deal with their drug of choice, give them support, try to find ways to get them off the stuff, etc., but leave everyone else alone. Same thing is happening with smoking these days - for those that want to quit, there is help. For those that don't, they can't smoke in enclosed places anymore, so it doesn't negatively impact others, but otherwise they are left alone. As far as pot, the stuff doesn't even physically addict you, so I have trouble seeing how it could be much of an actual problem for anyone (everyone I know that has wanted to quit just did it, no problem, no struggle). I know a lot of people say that it is used as an escape from reality and so on, but that in itself is no reason to make it illegal.

Here's one of my favorite quotes from one of the news articles on this topic:

But when Van Valkenburg spoke before the oversight committee Friday, he expanded on his position, explaining that it's his duty to represent all of Missoula County, lest he succumb to "the tyranny of the majority."
"Just because you have a majority doesn't mean you walk all over the minority," he said.

Yeah, how dare we infringe upon the right of the minority to force their ideals upon the majority, right? This is one of the most blatant inversions of the principle of protection from mob rule that I've ever seen...